Service Tax – Real Estate Agent – Meaning and Scope – Agreements entered into by the respondent with Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) for procurement, documentation, and facilitation of land transfer at a fixed average rate per acre – No separate consideration or commission for services – Profit/loss entirely contingent on difference between land purchase cost and fixed average price – Held: Transactions were outright sales of immovable property, not services – Respondent not a 'real estate agent' under Section 65(88) nor a 'real estate consultant' under Section 65(89) – Not liable for service tax [Paras 31–45]

Interpretation of MoUs – No Principal-Agent Relationship – Respondent assumed independent commercial risk, negotiated with landowners, and did not act on behalf of SICCL – MoUs did not specify commission, consultancy, or service fee – Held: MoUs created no fiduciary agency – Transactions were between principals [Paras 40–41]

Service – Exclusion under Section 65B(44)(a)(i) – Transfer of title in immovable property – Held: Such transactions excluded from the definition of 'service' under the Finance Act, 1994 – Respondent’s activities covered by this exclusion – No taxable service rendered [Paras 42–44]

Extended Limitation – Section 73(1) Proviso – Wilful Suppression – Held: No deliberate suppression or fraud established – All transactions conducted via banking channels and recorded in books – Respondent under bona fide belief that no service tax was payable – Invocation of extended limitation unjustified – Show cause notice time-barred [Paras 46–53]

Tribunal’s Order – Legally Correct – Tribunal rightly set aside demand and penalties – Commissioner erred in treating sale of land as taxable service – No interference warranted [Paras 45, 54–55]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Demand and penalties quashed – Tribunal’s order upheld – Respondent held not liable for service tax – Extended limitation under Section 73(1) inapplicable.

Motor Accident Compensation – Permanent Disability – Minor Victim – Multiplier Method – 14-year-old appellant sustained 77.1% permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident – High Court applied multiplier of 15, monthly income of ₹3,620 with 40% future prospects – Supreme Court affirmed multiplier and income but enhanced compensation under multiple heads – Held: Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- from ₹7,48,883/- [Paras 3.3, 5.1, 5.4]

Assessment of Disability – Future Prospects – Court upheld High Court’s finding accepting 77.1% disability based on unopposed medical board certificate – Future prospects added at 40% in line with Pranay Sethi principles – Loss of future earning capacity assessed by applying disability percentage to enhanced notional income [Paras 3.2, 5.1]

Special Heads of Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Medical Expenses – Applying Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Sona (Minor), and other precedents, Supreme Court awarded ₹3,00,000 each towards pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects – Also granted ₹40,000 for special diet and transport, ₹50,000 for future medical expenses, ₹40,000 for attendant charges – Held: Expenses beyond actual medical bills are permissible considering hospital stay and future treatment [Paras 5.2–5.3]

Tabular Summary of Compensation:

Loss of Future Earnings (with 77.1% disability): ₹7,03,337/-

Pain and Suffering: ₹3,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities: ₹80,000/-

Loss of Marriage Prospects: ₹3,00,000/-

Attendant Charges: ₹40,000/-

Special Diet and Transport: ₹40,000/-

Future Medical Expenses: ₹50,000/-

Total: ₹15,13,337/-

Interest and Directions – Additional Compensation – Supreme Court held appellant entitled to additional compensation of ₹7,64,454/- (i.e., over and above ₹5,75,883/- awarded by High Court) with 8% interest from date of application till realisation – Insurance company directed to deposit amount in appellant’s bank account within 8 weeks and file proof before Tribunal [Para 6–6.1]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- with 8% interest – Additional ₹7,64,454/- to be paid by insurer within 8 weeks – Proof of payment to be submitted before Tribunal.

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sanction for Prosecution – Effect of Departmental Exoneration – Held: Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically lead to discharge in criminal cases, especially trap cases, due to different standards of proof; matter remitted to trial court to determine the competent sanctioning authority for the accused-appellant [Paras 32-33, 40, 42-43].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Departmental Proceedings – Exoneration – Effect on Criminal Prosecution – Accused-appellant, a Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles, was exonerated in departmental proceedings on identical charges due to hostile witnesses – Held: Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not automatically warrant discharge in criminal cases, particularly trap cases, as the standard of proof differs significantly (preponderance of possibilities vs. beyond reasonable doubt); possibility of conviction in criminal trial remains even if witnesses turn hostile, as conviction can be based on the trap laying officer's testimony if credible [Paras 27-33].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sanction for Prosecution – Competence of Authority – Section 19(1) PC Act – Issue: Whether the Commissioner of Transport was competent to grant sanction for prosecution of the accused-appellant, who claimed appointment by the State Government – Held: Section 19(1) mandates that if the appointing authority is the State Government, sanction must be accorded by the State Government; the Explanation to Section 19(4) regarding 'competency' applies only when the validity of sanction is under scrutiny before an appellate or revisional forum, not at the initial stage of determination by the Special Judge [Paras 34-38].

Criminal Law – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sanction for Prosecution – Appointing Authority – Factual Dispute – Issue: Competing claims regarding whether the State Government or the Commissioner was the actual appointing authority of the accused-appellant, directly impacting the validity of the sanction order – Held: Due to the disputed factual scenario, the matter is remitted to the trial court for fresh adjudication on the limited issue of the actual appointing authority and its consequential bearing on the validity of the sanction order [Paras 39-40, 42-43].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Section 227/239 CrPC – Remittal for Re-determination – Trial Court had discharged the accused due to invalid sanction by the Commissioner of Transport, granting liberty to file a fresh chargesheet – High Court reversed, holding sanction valid – Supreme Court set aside High Court's finding on sanction and remitted to trial court – Held: Trial court to summon original records/contemporaneous documents regarding appointment, decide sanction validity; if sanction is found competent, trial proceeds; if not, chargesheet to be returned to the investigating agency for procuring fresh sanction from the appropriate authority [Paras 11, 13-15, 42-43].

Decision: – Appeals disposed of – Finding of High Court on validity of sanction set aside – Matter remitted to trial court for fresh determination of sanction issue – Contention regarding discharge based on departmental exoneration rejected – Trial court to determine appointing authority and validity of sanction, with liberty to summon records; if sanction invalid, chargesheet to be returned for fresh sanction [Paras 41-44].

Arbitration – Public Policy – Patent Illegality – Arbitral Award Set Aside – Arbitrator awarded reimbursement for second regular meals and welcome drinks to caterers despite express contract and circulars stating otherwise – Supreme Court held that this amounted to rewriting the contract – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider binding policy decisions of Railway Board which governed the MLA and exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 28(3) of the Act – Award found to be patently illegal and in conflict with public policy of India – Set aside under Section 34(2A) and 34(2)(b)(ii) [Paras 62–72].

Contract – Government Policy – Supremacy of Railway Board Circulars – No Unilateral Deviation Permissible – Circulars dated 23.10.2013 and 06.08.2014 formed basis of contract and fixed rates for meals and services – Clause 21.1 of Master Licence Agreement gave precedence to Railway policy over other contractual provisions – Held: No deviation permissible from binding Railway Board circulars – Arbitrator’s contrary interpretation was unjustified [Paras 56–60, 68–69].

Arbitration – Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 – Limits of Judicial Review Reaffirmed – Court reiterated limited grounds of interference under Section 34(2A) – Held: Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or correct errors of law unless award shocks conscience or contravenes fundamental policy – Arbitrator’s findings that ignored binding government policy warranted judicial interference [Paras 63–67].

Interest – Arbitrator’s Award on Lump Sum Interest Set Aside – Arbitrator Awarded Interest from 01.01.2018 on Entire Claim Though Claims Arose Periodically – Division Bench rightly held that interest award was erroneous – Supreme Court: In light of full setting aside of award, interest claim becomes infructuous [Paras 43, 72].

Catering Contracts – Welcome Drink Charges – Reimbursement Denied – Bid documents and Clause 8.1 of MLA permitted menu changes – Circulars contemplated welcome drink as part of service without separate charges – Held: No entitlement to separate payment – Arbitrator’s award unjustified [Paras 60–61, 71].

Decision: Appeals of IRCTC allowed – Arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected on 26.07.2022) and Delhi High Court’s judgments dated 13.08.2024 and 10.02.2025 set aside – Cross appeals filed by caterers dismissed – Parties to bear own costs.

Housing Law – Cooperative Housing Fraud – Allotment Scam – Lease Cancellation – Judicial Directions for Revival – Petitioners, homebuyers in a cooperative housing project, challenged cancellation of lease by GNIDA and alleged fraud and mismanagement by the housing society and developers – Authorities failed to complete the project or recover misused funds – Court held that over 67 verified allottees suffered for nearly two decades without redressal – Held: Direction issued for phased restoration of lease and development of towers subject to verification and payment of proportional dues [Paras 1–36, 41–44].

Administrative Directions – Constitution of Independent Committee – Housing Dispute Resolution – Supreme Court ordered constitution of a one-member independent Enquiry Committee headed by Retd. Justice Pankaj Naqvi to examine land dues, lease restoration, identification of genuine allottees, and propose mechanisms for completing stalled construction – Directed all stakeholders including GNIDA, State, banks and verified allottees to cooperate – Committee to submit report within four months [Paras 37–48].

Consumer Protection – Homebuyers’ Rights – Equitable Relief – Interim Restoration of Possession and Construction Rights – Court permitted verified groups of allottees to jointly undertake completion of Towers 1 and 2 after structural audits and clearance of dues – Observed that failure of GNIDA to assist genuine homebuyers was unjustified – Directed partial restoration of lease for Tower 1 on proportional payment basis and left scope for similar orders for Towers 3 and 4 through group efforts [Paras 26–36, 43].

Delay and Deficiency – State’s Inaction Criticised – Failure to Support Victims of Real Estate Fraud – Court criticised Greater Noida Authority for delay and failure to present feasible plans despite multiple orders – Found State in dereliction of duty to protect homebuyers from builder fraud – Ordered cooperation with the Committee and publication of notices to trace other allottees [Paras 28–30, 45–47].

Decision: Enquiry Committee constituted under retired High Court Judge to verify claims, suggest lease restoration, and formulate a time-bound plan for project completion – Committee to report in four months – Verified allottees permitted to complete Tower 1 and encouraged to form groups for other towers – GNIDA and State directed to fully cooperate – Matter listed for further directions on 24/03/2026.

Stray Animal Menace – Implementation of ABC Rules, 2023 – Court examines compliance affidavits filed by States/UTs following prior orders – Amicus Curiae report reveals serious lapses in sterilisation, vaccination, and municipal preparedness – States/UTs directed to file additional affidavits detailing remedial steps – Registry to annex summary report as part of judicial record [Paras 5–7]

Highways – Road Safety – Stray Cattle and Animal-Related Accidents – Directions of Rajasthan High Court endorsed and extended nationwide – States/UTs, NHAI and PWDs directed to remove stray animals from highways – Mandate issued for coordinated patrols, shelters, helplines and signage – Personal accountability fixed on officials – Status reports to be filed within 8 weeks [Paras 8–11]

Dog Bites – Institutional Spaces – Alarming rise in attacks at schools, hospitals, stadia, bus depots and railway stations – Detailed incidents from multiple States examined – Causes include poor waste disposal, unguarded premises, and administrative inaction – Court holds such conditions violate Article 21 and demand systemic correction [Paras 12–24]

Preventive Framework – Nationwide Directions – Mandatory fencing, campus security and appointment of Nodal Officers for all public/private institutional spaces – Municipal authorities to remove stray dogs and prohibit their return to same premises – Hospitals directed to stock anti-rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin – Educational institutions to conduct awareness drives – Animal Welfare Board to issue national SOPs – Compliance to be monitored rigorously [Paras 25–32]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life – Held: Failure to secure public institutions from preventable dog attacks violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Reaffirmation of State obligation to ensure safe environments in spaces of education, treatment and transit – Directions aimed at eliminating human-animal conflict through lawful, humane measures [Paras 22–26]

Decision:

Comprehensive nationwide directions issued for prevention of dog-bite incidents and stray animal control in institutional spaces and highways – States/UTs, Union Ministries, NHAI and Animal Welfare Board to file compliance affidavits within 8 weeks – Non-compliance may attract contempt – Next hearing on 13/01/2026 [Paras 25–33]

Criminal Law – Review – Special Investigation Team – Constitution based on Religious Identity – Review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking recall of directions mandating inclusion of Hindu and Muslim officers in the SIT investigating communal riots – Contention that such direction violates institutional secularism and amounts to religious profiling – Rejected – Held: The direction aimed at transparency and fairness in investigation of communal riots and does not impinge on secularism – State machinery must reflect fairness especially in sensitive communal cases [Paras 2-6].

Institutional Secularism – Alleged Violation – Direction to include police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities in SIT challenged as contrary to constitutional secularism – Supreme Court reiterated that secularism is a lived principle and should manifest in action – In cases involving religious conflict, inclusivity in investigation enhances public confidence – No constitutional infirmity in the impugned direction [Paras 4-6].

Police Misconduct – Failure to Register FIR – Despite clear information of a cognizable offence, police officers failed to act – Court found dereliction of duty by both local police and Superintendent – Justified constitution of a new investigation team with transparent composition [Para 3].

Open Court Hearing – Mentioning Practice Condemned – Application seeking open court hearing of review petition rejected – Court condemned the practice of seeking hearing before both Judges of the Bench separately without disclosure – Termed dubious and unprecedented [Para 1].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – Court found no error in the direction requiring religious diversity in SIT – Reaffirmed importance of transparency and real-world secularism in communal investigation contexts – Application for open court hearing rejected.

Land Acquisition – Employment in lieu of Acquired Land – No Statutory Right – Policy cannot override statute – Petitioner’s family land acquired in 1998 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; compensation paid at that time – Petitioner, born after acquisition, sought government employment in 2025 under a policy granting jobs to land-losers – Authorities and High Court rejected the claim as time-barred and unsupported by law – Held: Under the 1894 Act, acquisition entitles landowners only to compensation; there is no statutory or vested right to employment – Any administrative policy cannot override statutory provisions – Petition filed nearly 18 years after policy formulation is grossly delayed and misconceived – No illegality in rejection by authorities or High Court [Paras 2–3].

Administrative Policy – Employment Schemes for Land-losers – Effect of Delay – Claim for employment raised decades after acquisition is unsustainable—Delay defeats equity—Policy decisions being non-statutory confer no enforceable right unless contemporaneous with acquisition [Para 3].

Result – Special Leave Petition dismissed – No error in High Court order refusing employment – Pending applications also disposed of [Para 4].

Tender Law – Rejection of Highest Bid – Interpretation of “Previous Financial Year” – The appellant’s bid for a sand quarry lease was rejected for not submitting the Income Tax Return for FY 2021-2022 as mandated under Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules – Supreme Court held that at the time of bid submission (July 2022), the statutory deadline for filing return for FY 2021-2022 had not expired – Return for FY 2020-2021 was validly submitted – Rejection based on misinterpretation of “previous financial year” was arbitrary and defeated public interest – Held: Interpretation of “previous financial year” must be harmonious with Income Tax Act timelines [Paras 14-15]

Judicial Review – Tender Process – Public Interest – Court reaffirmed that while tenders are not open to routine judicial scrutiny, interference is warranted in cases of irrationality or misconstruction that diminishes competition and public revenue – Erroneous exclusion of highest bidder on misinterpretation of Rule vitiates the tender process – High Court failed to address this aspect – Judgment set aside [Paras 9-11, 14]

Remedies – Fresh Auction Ordered – In view of lapse of significant lease period (3 years 3 months out of 5), fresh auction directed under 2016 Rules – All parties allowed to bid afresh – Refund with interest directed to the successful bidder whose bid was previously accepted but lease not executed due to litigation – Public interest in maximising revenue reaffirmed [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Fresh auction ordered – Refund with interest at 6% per annum to previous successful bidder – Liberty to all parties to participate afresh.